Do Ye Even So To Them–A Renewed Torture Debate

Nearly three years ago, when I originally posted on this topic, America and torture were prevalent in the media. Over the course of the last several months more details of America’s flirtation with torture in the Bush/Cheney Administration have been exposed to further light. In that original post, many opined the instances of torture, if any, were just limited to a few bad apples in Iraq at Abu Ghraib. The most recent reports suggest otherwise, here, here, here. If you have the time and want to read the original recent CIA report and not just excerpts, you can find it here.We’ve also learned that the torture policies did not originate with lower level know nothings. Rather, they originated from and at the request of the higest levels of American leadership. We also learned that one of the primary authors of the torture memos was an active and endowed member of the Church, Jay Bybee. For more on Justice Bybee’s LDS background see here. That an individual as Jay Bybee could author such a document given his religous background, training and experience is simply beyond my ability to comprehend.

The question that prompted my original post was how does the essence of the Golden Rule play into how we treat even our most vile enemies in a preceived war scenario? Are there exceptions to Christ’s injuction that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us? If so, where are they found, and when do they apply? Is it really OK to torture people in the name, of that which we proclaim is right? Do the ends really justfy the means?

From the legal standpoint, does this conduct merit criminal prosecution? If so, who should be first in line? The CIA operative in the field following the orders and guidelines of superiors who assure him/her that “aggressive interrogation techniques” are completly within the bounds of the law? What about the dutiful Justice Jay Bybee, who created the legal fictions sufficient to support such conduct? What about the policy makers at the higest levels who requested such conduct be rationalized, legalized, and institutionalized?

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

On its face, this seems, like a pretty simple injunction. How hard can it be to treat other people as we would like them to treat us?

Yet, there is something about this failing and fallen world that has never quite learned the significance of this simple truth. The incredibly irony, however, is that individuals at the highest leadership levels of the United States government are doing everything within their power to subvert, distort, yea . . . even torture, as it were, Christ’s command that we treat each other as we would be treated.

The current debate raging in the halls of Congress all the way up to the White House is essentially how much abuse and torture can we inflict on individuals suspected of terrorist activities, without crossing the line ourselves into the illegal and the immoral? We read in theNew York Times about turning back the clock on rape:

In international law, where rape and sexual assault have long been classified as torture and war crimes, the world has begun to accept the importance of enforcement. In 1998, a tribunal convicted a paramilitary chief for watching one of his men rape a woman in Serbia. A year ago, the world rose up in outrage when United Nations peacekeepers raped women in Congo.

You’d think this was a settled issue. But it’s been opened up again in the bill on jailing, interrogating and trying terror suspects that President Bush is trying to ram through Congress in a pre-election rush. Both the White House and Senate versions contain provisions on rape and sexual assault that turn back the clock alarmingly. They are among the many flaws that must be fixed before Congress can responsibly pass this legislation.

Rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse are mentioned twice in the bill — once as crimes that could be prosecuted before military tribunals if committed by an “illegal enemy combatant,” and once as “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes if committed by an American against a detainee. But in each case, the wording creates new and disturbing loopholes.

In the bill, rape is narrowly defined as forced or coerced genital or anal penetration. It utterly leaves out other acts, as well as the notion that sex without consent is also rape, as defined by numerous state laws and federal law. That is the more likely case in a prison, where a helpless inmate would be unlikely to resist the sexual overtures of a guard or interrogator.

The section on sexual abuse requires that the act include physical contact. Thus it might not include ordering a terrified female prisoner to strip and dance, which happened in Rwanda, or compelling a male prisoner to strip and wear women’s underwear on his head, or photographing naked prisoners piled together, both of which happened at Abu Ghraib.

The bad news is that Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation. Under the compromise agreed to yesterday, Congress would recognize his authority to take these steps and prevent prisoners from appealing them to U.S. courts. The bill would also immunize CIA personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses and protect those who in the past violated U.S. law against war crimes . . .

But the senators who have fought to rein in the administration’s excesses — led by Sens. McCain, Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) — failed to break Mr. Bush’s commitment to “alternative” methods that virtually every senior officer of the U.S. military regards as unreliable, counterproductive and dangerous for Americans who may be captured by hostile governments.

Mr. Bush wanted Congress to formally approve these practices and to declare them consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It will not. But it will not stop him either, if the legislation is passed in the form agreed on yesterday. Mr. Bush will go down in history for his embrace of torture and bear responsibility for the enormous damage that has caused.

Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice. . .

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.

The tragic reality since the inception of the government’s “war on terror” has been shockingly revealed for the entire world to see in the abused and tortured victims at the hands of some in America’s military and “other” government agencies at various locations around the world. Some are and remain secret. Others have been published for the world to see, such as atAbu Ghraib:

8:16 p.m., Oct. 24, 2003. The detainee “GUS” has a strap around his neck. The detainee is being pulled from his cell as a form of intimidation. CPL GRANER is taking the picture. SOLDIER: PFC ENGLAND

There are scores more of these types of photographs depicting the abuses and torture that were allowed to occur while good men and women did nothing. I encourage you to follow this link to Salon and view some of the more graphic and telling photos as you contemplate this debate. You will read real life accounts of sexual abuse, infliction of severe pain, and mental abuse–all done in the name of protecting freedom, and the American way of life.

Over a millennium ago, the ancient prophet Mormon described similar abuses and torture of other depraved and degenerate cultures which inhabited this same continent. Mormon wroteto his son Moroni:

7 And now I write somewhat concerning the sufferings of this people. For according to the knowledge which I have received from Amoron, behold, the Lamanites have many prisoners, which they took from the tower of Sherrizah; and there were men, women, and children.

8 And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain; and they feed the women upon the flesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers; and no water, save a little, do they give unto them.

9 And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—

10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.

11 O my beloved son, how can a people like this, that are without civilization—

12 (And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and a delightsome people)

13 But O my son, how can a people like this, whose delight is in so much abomination—

14 How can we expect that God will stay his hand in judgment against us?

15 Behold, my heart cries: Wo unto this people. Come out in judgment, O God, and hide their sins, and wickedness, and abominations from before thy face!

There is already in place well written and thought out international laws governing the treatment of individuals in times of war. The Geneva Conventions have served the world well. Former warrior and secretary of state Colin Powell argued about the moral implications of the raging debate, in a letter to Senator McCain:

Dear Senator McCain:

I just returned to town and learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redine Cojmmon Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step and believe would be inconsisten with thd McCain amendment on torture which I supported last year.

I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one of my distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and tint his powerful argument. The world is begining to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.

I am as familliar with The Armed Forces Officer as is Jack Vessey. It was written after all the horrors World War II and General George c. Marshall, then Secretary of Defense, used it to tell the world and to remind our soldiers of our moral obligations with respect to those in our custody.

Sincerely,

Colin Powell

As an American I am ashamed the leaders of my government are having this debate. America was once a moral beacon of light to the world. As former President Reagan discussed America in his farewell address to the nation, he spoke of a shining city on a hill:

And that’s about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thng. The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.

As an American today, I feel our actions, or the actions of our leaders over the last several years have tarnished the shine of that city on the hill.

As a Latter-day Saint, I am concerned about the moral and spiritual well being of America, the cradle of the Restoration. Truly Mormon and Moroni saw our day over 1600 years ago. They warn us today through The Book of Mormon of what they saw, and what today we are living. Will we heed their counsel and warning? Will we change our course? Or, will we, like the Jaredites and Nephites, before us which inhabited this land of promise, a land choice above all other lands, be swept off because we refuse to serve the true and only God?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

40 Responses to “Do Ye Even So To Them–A Renewed Torture Debate”

I don’t ever remember Moroni beeing a wuss. I recall the lord admonishing the people for beeing slothfull and not beeing prepaired for the enemy.
Personally I don’t like to fight. You believe what you want and I will do the same. We try to convince one another we are right. If not so what. But… if you make me fight you; I will hurt you so badly you will never want to see me again. I will hurt you so badly your friends will be afraid. I can do this not in anger.
You act like we went to the Middle East so we could kidnap people and behead them for fun… my bad that was the other guys

Some people watch too many 24 episodes. Torture does not work. It never has. We should not live a double standard. We capture the bad guys and question them, but don’t inflict pain. The Book of Mormon does show that war is necessary, but it also shows compassion to the bad guys. That should be the core of this debate.

In a better world Bybee and Yoo would be in prison, not on circuit courts and in tenured academic positions, Dick Cheney would have been impeached rather than being granted honorary degrees, and Mitchell and Jessen would be hounded out of their profession and forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.

There is no need for the expertise in the art of torture. Newsweek did an interview about three months ago on torture. It was clear that our best intelligence came from the foreign-born guy who built trust with the bad guys when compared to the white guys who beat the snot out of them.

The key thing to remember about the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Notice it doesn’t say BETTER than you would have them do unto you, which would certainly make more sense in the context of treating all people well.

What this says to me is that there are degrees to this choice. From what I see, there are three.

First, we can love and forgive all men. Obviously this is the best, but also the hardest choice to honor, and therefore isn’t always expected of us, as we’ve seen throughout the Book of Mormon. But if we’re going to claim that our cause is just and our actions are to be honored by the Almighty, we had better be CERTAIN that we are obeying His will. I’m not going to make a statement for my country in this matter for or against because I won’t claim to have a right to revelation for any entire nation. That’s WAY outside of my jurisdiction.

Second, we can also imprison without torture, or quickly kill the prisoners. I won’t call this a mercy killing, because that’s not what it is, nor is there any such thing. Rather, it’s a direct consequence towards unrighteous threats that we see throughout the scriptures. Remember, “the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” But again, we had better be sure that we’re in a position where to take another life is honorable by the Redeemer, whose blood it will be to atone for that loss of life, as well as our transgression of His law.

But then there’s torture. I place this as the lowest of all the degrees of this choice. In comparison to the other two choices this is where it belongs, which is why we see it presented in such a harrowing way by Mormon. It’s to be avoided at all costs, for the heavens weep at the sight of such iniquity. Read the account of Enoch in the book of Moses and you’ll see that this is true.

We need to understand that whatever choice we make will be measured unto us again. We must treat others as we want to be treated because that is the consequence to which we will be held.

My concern, therefore, is for my nation. As it stands, there will come a day when our people will be tortured because that is the choice that we have made. And considering MY generation, the one who didn’t decide whether we were going to war, is the one who will inherit the conflicts that are to be left behind… I can only hope that we will bear the burden with as much grace and strength as the Almighty will afford us.

Don’t worry about being tortured because our country did not have the courage to fight evil. If you are tortured it’s because some bad guy did it, not because those of another political party were voted into power by the will of the people.

How soon we forget that we’ve killed the “leader” of another country. And I assure you, it pains me to call Hussein anything short of a tyrant.

But I must ask you what you expected. Whose blood are you asking for, since you’re so dissatisfied by our current casualty rate.

And I must correct you. If I’m attacked in my own country, it will be because we’ve lost the protection of the Almighty. If you read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, you’ll see that our nation will only remain a choice nation so long as we act according to the laws of a choice people.

If you’re willing to give away the perfect defense for a carnal and bloodthirsty offense, I really must say I’m glad you aren’t the one at the helm.

“Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? … We teach them that it’s not the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience. … In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient. … We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. … We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission.”

I’ve known Jay Bybee for more than 35 years. He gave up pursuing partnership in a big law firm because he was idealistic enough to believe that public service was more important. He is faithful without being fanatic, thoughtful without being pretentious and honestly committed to living and emulating Christ. I’m proud to say he is my friend.

I have never asked him about the memo, I think he has enough to deal with (like threats on his and his family’s lives that are credible enough to have protection assigned to them) without me acting like a reporter after a scoop.

Because of the person I know, I can only say that there must be much more to this memo and what it entailed than is now known.

KLC, I don’t know who you are or how you know Jay Bybee. I don’t even know Jay Bybee. I guess my question, based on your comment is how does a guy like Jay Bybee end up justifying the things he wrote in the memos for the Bush Administration? This is one of my core questions about Jay Bybee. Your description doesn’t make any sense. Neither does his background in the Church. I repeat, that I cannot for the life of me figure out how a guy with that type of background, and particularly with his legal background and clear capabillities in sound legal reasoning ends up creating the memos he wrote for the Bush Administration. It doesn’t add up to me.

I don’t know how close you are to him. You claim you have never asked him about the memo–why not? Do you not know him that well to be in a position to ask that question?

Do you think Jay Bybee is somehow beyond accountablity for his work in this endeavor? I’m not suggesting Jay Bybee is inherently an evil person–but I truly do not understand how someone of his stature and training, legally, spiritually, and professionally could possibly create such a document.

I’ve got to say a little more. I get the impression that bloggernacle readers generally assume that Jay is some right wing nut case who would bring a gun to a health care rally and who got where he is today by being a toady in a corrupt White House.

Jay used to be a regular columnist for Sunstone in its early days. If he were 30 years younger he would probably have been one of the founders of an LDS blog because he has an interest in the same things I see sparking interest in the bloggernacle: church history and doctrine, technology, the life of the mind and writing. He’s about as far from a Bo Greitz Mormon you can be. He is moderate conservative, careful with his thoughts, precise in their expression and mindful of their consequences.

I’ve known him since we were missionaries together. We aren’t best buds, we live in separate cities and have separate lives but in our BYU days I saw him often and since then our lives have crossed many times. I saw him as recently as last fall at a wedding reception.

Why haven’t I asked him about this? Do you think maybe that’s the problem, no one has thought to ask him the golden question, kind of like all those eager friends just waiting to have us invite them to meet the missionaries? Like I said, I’m not about to come across as an eager reporter looking for a scoop at a time in his life when he and his family have been physically threatened over this situation.

I’ll repeat what I said, I know Jay Bybee, I know what kind of person he is, which is why I know there is more to this story than what is readily available in the popular press. I’m sure that some day when he chooses to or is compelled to he will explain his reasoning, until then he has chosen to remain silent about this, probably on advice of counsel.

Why haven’t I asked him about this? Do you think maybe that’s the problem, no one has thought to ask him the golden question, kind of like all those eager friends just waiting to have us invite them to meet the missionaries?

No–just trying to get some sense of your relationship with him. I’m pretty sure that if he had some response to make and actually wanted to, he certainly would have the opportunity to do so whether you personally asked him or not.

Like I said, I’m not about to come across as an eager reporter looking for a scoop at a time in his life when he and his family have been physically threatened over this situation.

Any physical threats to Jay Bybee and/or his family are of course simply unacceptable and innapropriate. That said, taking such a position as he did regarding torture is going to have some consequence–some of which is going to be push back by people who have honest and reasonable disagreements with his positions. Or, are you of the opinion Jay Bybee should not face reasonable consequences for his actions–what sets him apart from everyone else who must suffer consequences from choices?

I’ll repeat what I said, I know Jay Bybee, I know what kind of person he is, which is why I know there is more to this story than what is readily available in the popular press.

Well, you may know him, but your argument here is pretty weak. The fact you know him does not necessarily mean there is some mysterious hidden explanation for his justification of torture through the memos that have come to light. It could be as simple that he was just unable to resist the power and prestige available to him at the level at which he found himself in the White House.

“…are you of the opinion Jay Bybee should not face reasonable consequences for his actions–what sets him apart from everyone else who must suffer consequences from choices?”

Since this is the second time you’ve asked this I should respond directly. Of course not, no one is immune from the consequences of their actions, I would think that would not have to be said. And your raising of it as if it is an issue is only an attempted slight directed at me, painting me as someone who can’t or won’t understand accountability.

“…your argument here is pretty weak. The fact you know him does not necessarily mean there is some mysterious hidden explanation for his justification of torture through the memos that have come to light. It could be as simple that he was just unable to resist the power and prestige available to him at the level at which he found himself in the White House.”

Guy, I’d say my argument is quite a bit stronger than any you can muster. You only have the popular press to go on and we all know how accurate that can be. I have 35 years of association which tells me nothing about any memo but does tell me something about the person you and Daniel want to string up. I see the seeming disconnect between the person I know and memo as it has been presented in the press. Given that disconnect what do you think I should do? Pick up a few stones and hop on your vilification bus or side with a man I know as a friend and a brother in the gospel? I choose the latter. And I am hardly pleading some “mysterious hidden explanation” I’m acknowledging that things are rarely what they seem when it comes to national politics or any other high stakes situation that becomea a flash point in the national conscience. I am willing to stand by my friend until the time comes when the evidence and explanations require me to do otherwise. Would you do anything less for those you consider a friend?

And your raising of it as if it is an issue is only an attempted slight directed at me, painting me as someone who can’t or won’t understand accountability.

Nonsense. You state over and over again Jay Bybee is a great guy simply based on your casual assocation with him over the years. My query was legitimate given the only argument you can muster in his defense is you know him and you think he’s a good guy, therefore there must be something more to the story.

You also write:

You only have the popular press to go on and we all know how accurate that can be.

No, we have the actual memo, which has piqued the curiosity many more individuals than just me.

Given that disconnect what do you think I should do? Pick up a few stones and hop on your vilification bus or side with a man I know as a friend and a brother in the gospel?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. My questioning his reasoning or my wondering how a person with his background could come up with such a memo hardly qualifies as a vilifiation bus. But, if it makes you feel better, by all means use all the hypberbole you can muster.

I am willing to stand by my friend until the time comes when the evidence and explanations require me to do otherwise.

I’d love to hear an explanation. I’ve love to see Jay Bybee testify at a Congressional hearing under oath to justify his handiwork. I’m still waiting.

I haven’t read the IG report yet, I’ve just seen a few write ups and excerpts around here and other places. Without getting into the substance of the controversy, I’m doubting that there will be a lot of popular outrage over any of the allegations of abuse. Right or wrong, I think the average American assumes that some rough stuff goes on behind the scenes and that’s okay. One reason for that assumption is that Hollywood tells us so every day.

I’ve long been fascinated with the disconnect between what pundits, politicians and various activist groups complain about and the status of interrogation techniques in the popular culture (here’s a column I did on the subject in 2005). In countless films and TV shows the good guys — not the bad guys — do things to get important information that makes all of the harsh methods and allegedly criminal techniques in the IG report seem like an extra scoop of ice cream and a Swedish massage. In NYPD Blue, The Wire, The Unit, 24 and on and on, suspects are beaten, threatened, terrified. In some instances they are simply straight-up tortured. In movies, too, this stuff is commonplace. In Patriot Games, Harrison Ford shot a man in the kneecap to get the information he needed in a timely manner. In Rules of Engagement, Samuel L. Jackson shot a POW in the head to get another man to talk. In Guarding Tess, Nick Cage blows off a wimpy little man’s toes until he talks. In The Untouchables Sean Connery conducts a mock execution.

Now, I know I will get a lot of “it’s just a movie” or “TV shows aren’t real” email from people. At least I have every other time I’ve made this point. So let me concede a point I’ve never disputed while making one these folks don’t seem to grasp. If such practices, in the contexts depicted, were as obviously and clearly evil as many on the left claim, Hollywood could never get away with having the good guys employ them. Harrison Ford in the Tom Clancy movies would never torture wholly innocent and underserving victims for the same reasons he wouldn’t beat his kids or hurl racial epithets at black people. But given sufficient time to lay out the context and inform the viewers of the stakes, as well as Ford’s motives, the audience not only understands but applauds his actions. Of course it’s just a movie. But the movie is tapping into and reflecting the popular moral sentiments. Think of these scenes as elaborate hypothetical situations in the debate about torture and interrogation that are acted out and played before focus groups of normal Americans.

See, it works on 24 and Alias, therefore it must work in real life. Of course, the real problem is that the CIA was always at a disadvantage with its detainees, as expressed on page 83 of the IG report:

According to a number of those interviewed for this Review, the Agency’s intelligence on Al-Qa’ida was limited prior to the initiation of the CTC Interrogation Program. The Agency lacked adequate linguists or subject matter experts and had very little hard knowledge of what particular Al-Qa’ida leaders–who later became detainees–knw. This lack of knowledge led analysts to speculate about what a detainee “should know,” vice information the analyst could objectively demonstrate the detainee did know.

The CIA didn’t

1. Know the language.
2. Know the enemy

Thus the CIA speculated about what the detainee ought to have known.

As for Bybee, the man is a shame to America. I’ll stand by that no matter how nice of a guy he is. The reason he is a shame to America is that he took the CIA’s words at face value, as if the CIA would never lie to him. He never bothered to actually do a little research into techniques or what would happen if you combined the techniques. This isn’t that hard. There is plenty of open source information out there to prove that what the CIA wanted approved fell into the category of torture, and thus illegal under US law. Maybe he was simply too ignorant of the way the CIA works, or of the CIA’s dark ugly history. That is no excuse for someone heading the OLC!

Sadly when it comes to Judge Bybee, there appears to be a quid pro quo involved. See, he told Alberto Gonzales, when Mr. Gonzales asked Bybee to run the OLC, that he would prefer a judgeship on the Ninth Circuit so he could be close to home. Mr. Bybee covers the crimes of the Bush administration at the OLC and gets the plush job he always desired.

Dan, I was unaware of that link. Thanks for providing it–very interesting.

Sadly when it comes to Judge Bybee, there appears to be a quid pro quo involved. See, he told Alberto Gonzales, when Mr. Gonzales asked Bybee to run the OLC, that he would prefer a judgeship on the Ninth Circuit so he could be close to home. Mr. Bybee covers the crimes of the Bush administration at the OLC and gets the plush job he always desired.

My hope is that is not the case here. I don’t know whether that is what happened. Certainly it is a plausible scenario–and frankly one I think more plausible that the mystery reason KLC implies exists simply because he knows Jay Bybee and he’s a good guy–therefore there must be some secret information source of which we are unaware that some day somehow will make all this make some sense.

Again Guy, as I repeated to Dan, my argument is not that Jay Bybee is a nice guy and therefore we should just let this pass. My argument is that the man I know and the memo as I’ve seen it presented in the press create a huge disconnect. What should I do? Throw him under the bus or stand by him? Given my 35 years of association I choose to stand by him, assuming that the disconnect is not caused by some mysterious hidden demonic streak I never saw but rather by circumstances or situations I know nothing about.

But again, we had better be sure that we’re in a position where to take another life is honorable by the Redeemer, whose blood it will be to atone for that loss of life, as well as our transgression of His law.

uh… you also better be damned well sure you’ve got the right guy. America has a tendency to go after minorities far more aggressively than whites, thus leading to a disparity in numbers of blacks on death row. Seeing how distrustful Americans are, in general, of Arab looking/speaking men, I would be extra careful about who we execute (personally I prefer to abolish capital punishment all together).

Dan, my argument is not that Bybee is a nice guy therefore we should forgive him. My argument is that knowing Jay Bybee personally I have to conclude that there are things about this memo that I and you and anyone else who wasn’t there don’t know or understand.

You can assume and fume and condemn all you want sitting at your computer and your keyboard, that doesn’t make it true.

You can assume and fume and condemn all you want sitting at your computer and your keyboard, that doesn’t make it true.

And, you can profess to know him–though by your own admission yours is a casual relationship at best–and that doesn’t create some unseen rationale that no one can yet fathom that somehow in the future all this will make sense. I don’t buy it.

Is a casual relationship better than none at all? The only things you know about Jay Bybee are things that have been doled out to the public and yet you sit here assuming that you know enough to condemn him. I don’t buy that.

There are certain unpalatable aspects of war that compel men to do extraordinary things to our enemies for the good of our nation. This leftist navel gazing is undermining our security and should be stopped immediately.

KLC—Me thinks you had better take 3 advil and get a good night’s sleep. There is nothing in Mr. Bybee’s recent resume that suggests that he is connected to the admonitions of the Savior.

Furthermore, many people have said for years that this kind of stuff was going on. But would the vast majority of the saints believe it? Why not? The answer is very simple—they didn’t want to. Maybe we should reread the excellent article in this past week’s NEWSWEEK magazine by Sharon Begley entitled, “Lies of mass destruction,” on why people will believe such stuff. It’s very enlightening.

Milan D. Smith, Jr., a 9th circuit judge (and brother of my former senator, Gordon Smith) appointed by George Bush, graduate of BYU, and Mormon, just ruled that Ashcroft is liable for people that were “wrongfully retained” after 9-11. Mormons are good guys, too, when it comes to our constitutional rights.

What the BofM quotes in the OP show is that societies can change drastically very quickly. When we are attacked our first response is (often) to hit back. If left unchecked Mormon’s teachings show that we can very quickly go off the deep end. We will become worse than the people who attacked us quite quickly if we do not purposely choose a more gospel centered response.

In this case the independent estimates of the number killed during the war in Iraq are approaching 1,000,000 people. Far more than SH would have harmed in the same time frame.

And (to me most troubling) we should not forget that the FBI told President Bush that torture would not work, that the FBI could get more information out of the prisoners without torture than the CIA could get with torture! The FBI also PROVED that point with the first few prisoner captured – they were able to get just as much info as the CIA (and did it quicker to boot!). In spite of that advice (and proof on the ground!) Bush and company (including Bybee) purposely chose to torture. At that point in my mind they sealed their own testimonies so to speak. They had the “truth” presented to them – torture doesn’t work, legal humane alternatives are available, and the we don’t have to compromise our constitutional and moral principles – yet Bush and company (knowing it wouldn’t help!) still chose torture!

Responding as the Savior commands us to is difficult in the best of times. During a war it becomes very difficult. However, by design endowed members of the Church are suppose to act differently than everyone else. The published words of the memo show that doing what his bosses (Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft) wanted was more important than either the Constitution or the laws he (AND HIS BOSSES!) had sworn to uphold, or the gospel covenants he had made.

The OP asks our opinion of who should be held accountable: I would start with Bush and Cheney, throw in Ashcroft 9and other Bush AGs and Counsels), and then the various CIA directors. finally I would add in any Justice Department, CIA, White House or other lawyers who contributed to writing the legal “covers”.

Guy and Dan,
Here again so quick to judge and not all the facts are in. You’re pretty good at this tag-team thing. There were many lives saves by information given by detenee according to other menos released. AS they say WAR is Hell. History will tell us if this war was worth the price and if we did the right thing. So you can opine all you want and just get it out of you system.

jfc, the memo that Cheney had de-secreted did NOT say that torture worked. What it actually said was that at least one detainee that was tortured provided actionable intelligence. We know the name of this detainee, Abu Zubaydah, and we know that he was interrogated by the FBI by a man who knew his language, and that he divulged “actionable intelligence.” Before he was tortured, not after. Torture didn’t produce anything.

On Monday, August 24, as President Obama began his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, his administration released a previously classified 2004 report by the CIA’s inspector general that strongly criticized the techniques employed to interrogate “high-value” al-Qaeda suspects at the CIA’s secret prisons.[1] The report revealed that CIA agents and contractors, in addition to using such “authorized” and previously reported tactics as waterboarding, wall-slamming, forced nudity, stress positions, and extended sleep deprivation, also employed a variety of “unauthorized, improvised, inhumane and undocumented” methods. These included threatening suspects with a revolver and a power drill; repeatedly applying pressure to a detainee’s carotid artery until he began to pass out; staging a mock execution; threatening to sexually abuse a suspect’s mother; and warning a detainee that if another attack occurred in the United States, “We’re going to kill your children.”

The inspector general also reported, contrary to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s claims, that “it is not possible to say” that any of these abusive tactics— authorized or unauthorized—elicited valuable information that could not have been obtained through lawful, nonviolent means. While some of the CIA’s detainees provided useful information, the inspector general concluded that the effectiveness of the coercive methods in particular—as opposed to more traditional and lawful tactics that were also used—”cannot be so easily measured.” CIA officials, he wrote, often lacked any objective basis for concluding that detainees were withholding information and therefore should be subjected to the “enhanced” techniques. The inspector general further found no evidence that any imminent terrorist attacks had been averted by virtue of information obtained from the CIA’s detainees. In other words, there were no “ticking time bombs.”